From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: UFDTF Metamodeling Document
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:11:28 -0500
>
> On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Conrad Bock wrote:
>
> > Boris put it very well in
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0085.html
> > where he says it is very useful to have a data storage
> > specification for
> > the language (his message would make quite a nice ad for OMG,
> > actually!). It is important that such a storage specification be
> > generally agreed if the stored ontologies are to be widely accessible.
> > It isn't good for W3C and OMG to adopt different data storage
> > specifications for OWL.
>
> Agreed, however does it make sense for there to be a storage
> mechanism for OWL specifically, rather than building on whatever
> storage mechanism is chosen for RDF?
>
> -Alan
Absolutely. Tools need to be able to store OWL axioms and facts as
entities different from RDF triples. In fact, building an OWL
structural specification on top of an RDF storage methodology is
probably the wrong thing to do.
peter